Agenda item
Site Bound by Raven Row, Stepney Way Sidney Street, London E1 (PA/15/01789)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 4 to 25 storeys in height comprising 564 residential units, commercial floorspace, 70 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 4 to 25 storeys in height comprising 564 residential units, commercial floorspace, 70 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works.
The Chair invited the registered objector to address the meeting and it was noted that they were not present at the meeting. The Chair then invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee. Maxine Powell highlighted the applicant’s track record in delivering similar schemes. She also explained the regeneration benefits of the proposal, the level and quality of the affordable housing, the generous levels of communal amenity space and landscaped public open space. The plans had been amended to reduce the impacts and to maximise the level of affordable housing.
In responding to questions, she outlined the outcome of viability assessment and that the costs of delivering the affordable units would exceed the anticipated profits from the scheme. However, the applicant was willing to forgo profit in the short term in the hope that the margins would improve over time. In response to questions about the 1-2 bed affordable rent properties, it was noted that initial consideration had been given to reducing the rent levels further, but the view was that reducing the rents any further would impact on the overall level that could be provided and might require a significant redesign of the application. In relation to the car parking spaces, she stressed the need for the number of car parking spaces for the private sale units to help fund the 30.7% affordable housing. She also answered questions about the changes to the application to protect the development potential of the neighbouring site including the repositioning of the proposed buildings away from that site to address objections.
Beth Eite (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. The Committee were advised of the site location, the aims for the site in the Whitechapel Vision Master Plan SPD and how the scheme complied with this. It was explained that the application had been carefully designed to facilitate the development of the neighbouring Cavell Street site. Consultation on the application had been carried out and the results were noted. The land use complied with policy and would result in a net increase in employment opportunities.
The Committee noted the key features of the scheme including the design approach, the amendments to reduce any impacts and the heritage assessment. They also noted details of the housing mix and that the level of amenity space and the child play space exceeded the policy requirements.
In terms of the amenity impact, the development would cause a loss of light to neighbouring properties. How it should be noted that the majority of windows most affected by the building did not serve habitable rooms and in many instances, the issues partly stemmed from the design of existing developments. Overall it was considered that plans would not unduly affect amenity and the impacts did not justify a refusal
The proposed number of car parking spaces slightly exceeded the policy requirements. However, Officers did not consider that the proposals would increase parking pressure in the area.
Giving the merits of the application Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the air quality assessment and the exclusion of the Ayosofia school from the assessment. They also asked about the consultation responses, the need for an additional drop and off and pick up area within the development , the need for the number of car parking spaces (given the good transport links), the number of disabled parking spaces, particularly the number to be made available to the affordable units.
Questions were also asked about the height and design of the development, the access route to the development given the level of traffic congestion in the area, the quality of the ground floor properties and the housing in general, the quantum and location of the child play space within the development, the energy efficiency measures, the health contributions and the secure by design measures.
Members also asked about the density issues and the impact of such issues on internal amenity (as highlighted in the report) and the measures to preserve the development potential of the neighbouring Cavell Street site.
Officers responded that the school no longer operated from the building so has not been included in the assessment. It was common practice for consultees to make no comments on applications but all of the issues identified in the consultation section of the report had been assessed.
The plans sought to provide 70 car parking spaces at basement level. 10% of which would be provided as wheelchair accessible spaces, in accordance with the policy which only set targets for the development as a whole. It did not set specific targets for particular tenures.
The application had been carefully designed to enhance of the setting of the surrounding buildings and details of the materials would be secured by condition. The design of the ground floor units had been revised to address the amenity issues raised by the GLA and the residential units complied with the former Lifetime Home Standards. Consideration had been also given to the level of affordable housing that could be provided. The viability testing showed that should the units be delivered as affordable rents, a slightly greater percentage could be provided. However this would still fall short of the policy targets.
Officers welcomed the overprovision of play space for all the age groups. All of the residential blocks would have access to child play space, comprising a mixture of ground floor and roof top space.
There would be conditions to ensure that the application would be secured by design and measures to minimise building emissions (in accordance with the targets). Consideration would be given to the potential to link the development with a suitable heating plant. The applicant would take steps to ensure this. The application would be CIL liable and would include health contributions that would be allocated according to need.
The density of the scheme marginally exceeded that recommended for a site of this size in the London Plan. Whilst a small number of both the private and affordable housing, fell short of meeting the sunlighting and daylighting targets, it should be noted that 80% of the proposed units did achieve the targets and theses were common results for development in a dense urban area.
As explained in the presentation, the plans had been amended to protect the development potential of the neighbouring site and there had been discussions with the applicants throughout to ensure this.
Officers also explained the various vehicles access routes to the site and to the proposed car park.
In summary the Chair felt that there was a lot of merit to the application and was therefore minded to support the application. He hoped that the proposed level of affordable housing would be the minimum that would be provided on site. Nevertheless he expressed reservations about the affordability of the one bed affordable properties, the appropriateness of the height of the development and that plans exhibited some signs of overdevelopment.
On a vote of 7 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the planning permission be GRANTED at Site Bound by Raven Row, Stepney Way Sidney Street, London E1 for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 4 to 25 storeys in height comprising 564 residential units, commercial floorspace, 70 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works (PA/15/01789) subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report
5. Any other conditions(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
6. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning consent.
Supporting documents: